"…Walker told police his fiancée had walked outside their house and yelled across Dean Avenue for their neighbors to quiet down. A group of juveniles ran across the street and attacked the woman, Walker told officers.
They dragged her to a corner of the intersection of East 16th Street and Dean Avenue and began punching her in the face, Walker told officers. He said he grabbed his gun and ran toward the group, firing two shots into the air.
The juveniles stopped and ran away after he fired the shots, he said, and Walker put the gun away in his home.
Walker’s fiancée had a bloody nose and bruising and swelling to her face.
Walker was charged with reckless use of a firearm. He was booked and released from the Polk County Jail, authorities said.
So he shot the gun into the air not caring where the bullets landed, instead of at the attackers? Do you have any thoughts on, if the bullets were to have harmed someone, if he should be held responsible? Or is any use of a gun ok?
From the article, the police got a report of someone shooting AT kids. It also says “detained without incident,” not arrested.
Just going by the article, I’d say they were sorting out everyone’s stories and he wasn’t going to argue about going to the station while they did. If it turns out that he shot at the kids, but described that as shooting in the air because, hey, he didn’t hit any of them, then they might charge him.
Any time you defend yourself or someone else from attack, you’re at risk of being arrested later (because defending yourself can look awfully similar to attacking someone else). So this isn’t so unusual. I doubt things will go much further, given that independent evidence seems to be backing up Walker’s story of how the events unfolded.
He was charged with reckless use of a firearm, which sounds pretty reasonable when someone fires into the air in a neighborhood. It’s not acceptable to put the whole block at risk of accidental injury or death so this guy can play Yosemite Sam.
Guns are for killing people, not scaring them. If, in his judgement as a responsible gun owner, the danger to his fiancee warranted the use of deadly force, he should have shot at the assailants. The fact that he did not indicates a level of uncertainty on his part that would make any rational person hold their fire.
Shooting randomly in a densely populated area is not an acceptable middle ground between “kill the bad guys” and “call the cops”.
Note also that he was charged and released, while one of the assailants is cooling his heels in jail after being caught with an illegal type of knife.
Firing into the air is reckless use of a firearm. Bullets come down, and can kill people. The second thing I learned when I took a firearm safety course (after “always treat the gun as if it is loaded”) is “know what you’re shooting at, and what’s behind what you’re shooting at”. Firing up is by definition not safe.
Firing into the ground probably isn’t reckless, and that’s what I’d do if I wanted to scare someone off and had the presence of mind to think about it.
That said, I’d be inclined to grant some leeway on this one if I were a prosecutor or a jury member. Assuming he didn’t actually hurt anyone and that he had a reasonable fear for his fiancee’s safety.
Except that you can get a ricochet if you fire at the ground, which may then go on to hit someone. (This is particularly likely if the ground is frozen, or extremely dry as a result of drought. My club’s outdoor range has a real problem with this in the summer months, and new members are strongly warned to ALWAYS directly at the berm, and never at the ground.)
That’s why I suspect this won’t go too much further. By sheer dumb luck the fellow’s “warning shots” didn’t hit anyone, and they did appear to stop an assault in progress. I can’t see a jury coming down too hard on him. (But I fully agree that “warning shots” should NEVER be fired! They are unsafe!)
Bounce, in general. How much depends on the caliber of the round, the angle at which the bullet hits the ground, and whether the bullet is solid, hollowpoint, or frangible.
Neither the sky nor the ground is a safe direction to fire off a round. (Although I’d argue the sky is marginally safer IF you point the muzzle of the gun straight up, as the bullet will fall pretty much straight down on the return. You might be hit, but it’s not likely someone any distance away from you will be affected. Shoot at the ground, and the trajectory of the resulting ricochet is very hard to predict.)
The assailants had already stopped beating the girl before the police arrived, after being scared away by a guy shooting his gun. The cops didn’t arrest any of the assailants for the actual assault, only arrested one of them for an illegal knife.
Do you think that not arresting all of the assailants, or arresting any of them for the actual assault, isn’t a problem?
A problem caused by the guy shooting the gun, thus leaving the cops with no evidence to arrest the other guys? I could see that. But that’s not the problem the OP had in mind.
Sure, but realistically it’s probably not a solvable problem. It’s hard to arrest people who aren’t at the scene any more and who may not be easily identified by either the victim or the bystanders.
So the guy should have called the cops and let the guys continue to beat his fiance until the cops arrived? I mean, he could have gone out and attempted to break the fight up, but the assailants might have run off, leaving the cops with no evidence. I could see that.
All this talk about how LUCKY he was those bullets didn’t hit anyone. I’m sorry but I think that’s ridiculous. Yes it’s careless to shoot them in the air, and yes there are documented cases of someone getting hurt by a falling bullet; but the chances of anyone getting hit with a bullet shot in the air are very slim. If it was a powerful enough weapon; I’d venture to say there’s more danger of a 2nd person getting shot with a bullet if he shot one of the attackers. A bullet going level is much more dangerous than a bullet shot up in the air.
Too many variables to answer this. Some bullets are made to split or flatten out when they hit something. It also depends on the angle in which it’s shot. It’d be tough to say if it would ricochet or simply flatten out.
Actually, it’s fine to use a gun for scaring someone (under the right circumstances). You’re not obligated to fire your gun just because you’ve drawn it. If Walker had pointed his pistol at the assailants and shouted “Stop or I’ll shoot!” and the kids had run away, he’d have been fine.
Or it may mean that he was afraid that if he fired at the kids, he might accidentally hit his fiancee. (Which is certainly a reasonable concern to have under the circumstances; I doubt everyone was standing completely still.) Certainly a reasonable person seeing multiple (presumably male) attackers beating up an unarmed woman might have cause to be fear she was in imminent danger of severe bodily harm if not death, so from that angle bringing deadly force into the situation can be justified.
He shouldn’t have fired “warning shots,” though. That’s a no-no. A warning shout (unlike a shot) endangers no one, and should have been the course of action Walker chose once he made the decision to get involved.
I’m not finding much else besides the Des Moines Register article on this incident, but I don’t see anything there about Walker having a pistol. It mentions “gun” a couple of times. As other posters have asked about bullets in the air and bullets ricocheting off the ground I suppose it’s a given this wasn’t a shotgun involved, but I didn’t see the type of gun mentioned.
And for the record, I have no issue with the guy getting arrested for shooting a gun in the city, I’m more disappointed that none of the assailants were also arrested for the assault.
True. I assumed pistol because that’s what most handguns are these days, but he could have been using a rifle or shotgun, or a revolver. Doesn’t change anything significant.
I’m sure they will be, if they can be identified. That’s the tough part.